| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:31 pm 'Able Danger' Intel Could Rewrite 9/11 History |
|
Alright, my friends, this is a serious issue and a serious failure by the Clinton Administration (and 9/11 commission). So stop, I say to the far-left prominent liberals, blaming Bush for allowing 9/11 to take place.
| Quote: | 'Able Danger' Intel Could Rewrite 9/11 History
Thursday, August 11, 2005
WASHINGTON � The federal commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told twice about "Able Danger," a military intelligence unit that had identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers a year before the attacks, a congressman close to the investigation said Wednesday.
Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit � once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.
Weldon said he was upset by suggestions earlier Wednesday by 9/11 panel members that it had been not been given critical information on Able Danger's capabilities and findings.
"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger," Weldon wrote to former Chairman Gov. Thomas Kean (search) and Vice-Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (search). "The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.
"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the commission worked to expose," Weldon added.
On Wednesday, a source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission � formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (search) � told FOX News that aides who still had security clearances had gone back to the National Archives outside Washington, D.C., to review notes on Atta and any information the U.S. government had on him and his terror cell before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The source acknowledged that the aides were looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the fall of 2003.
Staffers apparently did not recall being told of the Able Danger information at that meeting and wanted to double-check their records.
Former commission spokesman Al Felzenberg told The New York Times in Thursday editions that Atta was mentioned to panel investigators during at least one meeting with a military officer. That briefing came in July 2004, less than two weeks before the commission's final report was issued to the public.
Felzenberg said the information about Atta was considered suspect because it didn't jibe with many other findings. For example, the intelligence officer said Atta was in the United States in late 1999, but travel records confirmed that he did not enter the country until late 2000.
"He wasn't brushed off," Felzenberg told The Times about the military officer's briefing. "I'm not aware of anybody being brushed off. The information that he provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing."
But Weldon said that argument was not good enough.
"The 9/11 commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house," Weldon wrote in his letter Wednesday night.
"Therefore it is no small irony," Weldon pointed out, "that the commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention."
On Thursday, Weldon told FOX News that the military official, who was under cover when he was in Afghanistan for the October 2003 briefing, is certain he told the staffers about Atta at that time.
The military intelligence officer who attended that meeting with staffers "kept notes of that meeting and will testify under oath that he not only told" the staffers about Able Danger's mission, but about Atta.
Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, told FOX News on Wednesday that if Atta's name had been mentioned in the October 2003 briefing, it would have jumped out at staffers.
He said that the commission did not include the claims by Able Danger in the definitive report of the events leading up to Sept. 11 because it had no "information that the United States government had under surveillance or had any knowledge of Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.
"It could be a very crucial incident in terms of the lead-up to 9/11. It could reveal flaws in the intelligence sharing or the lack of intelligence that we have not yet focused on," Hamilton said of the military's tracking of Atta and its inability to get domestic intelligence agencies to follow up.
Hamilton told FOX News that the commission team would get to the bottom of the confusion over what the United States knew about Atta and whether it played into the commission's investigation.
"I think the 9/11 commission's obligation at this point is to review our records very, very carefully and make very soon � we hope within the next few days � a complete statement about what happened during our investigation," Hamilton said.
Weldon said that he personally knows five members of the commission and is not attacking the integrity of any of them. He said he discussed the matter with two commissioners who told him they were never briefed about Able Danger.
"I have to ask why. I would hope there was not a deliberate attempt by someone on the 9/11 commission staff to keep this information" from the commissioners, Weldon said, adding "I find no fault right now with the commissioners."
A commission spokesman told FOX News that the panel expected to issue a statement before the end of the week.
Among the most critical facts to be determined, if the information about Atta did exist in 2000, would be who then blocked the intelligence from going to the FBI, which could have tracked down the terror cell.
"Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI," Weldon wrote.
"Fear of tarnishing the commission's legacy cannot be allowed to override the truth. The American people are counting on you not to 'go native' by succumbing to the very temptations your commission was assembled to indict," he added. |
Add this with the fact that Sudan offered Clinton Osama...
I'm not going to say that it's all Clinton's fault, because it most definitely is not (it's mostly an intelligence failure)--but these failures happened DURING the Clinton administration, and for the left, such as Howard Dean, to brutally attack Bush about 9/11 (he knew about 9/11 ahead of time and did nothing about it). 9/11 commission wouldn't even look at the tape of Clinton talking about Sudan--how he pleaded for them to take Osama when he didn't even have him. I heared the tape. Not right.
So, essentially, in short, a military intelligence group called "Able Danger" knew about Muhamed Atta's Al Quada cell in the US. They went to the Clinton Administration a year before 9.11 and the Pentagon and were flat out denied clearance to talk with other agencies. This could have prevented 9.11 and is one of the single worst intelligence failures in US history. As I said before, couple that with Sudan, and you have a failure President on terrorism--and the left has no right to accuse President Bush of knowing about 9.11 ahead of time and doing nothing.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
Surprise Suprise. The oh so perfect Clintion administration screwed up. Give me a minute to stifle my surprise... 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Surprise Suprise. The oh so perfect Clintion administration screwed up. Give me a minute to stifle my surprise... |
I don't think you'll need a minute. It took me 0.00000000000000000001 seconds to stifle MY surprise
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:17 pm |
|
I wish people would stop trying to blame this on a political side. Clinton and his people had their reasons for not taking Osama bin Laden, Bush and his people had their reasons for not recognizing the imminent threat of 9/11. We can pin it on either guy, but there's no point. We can't say for sure that if Clinton had taken bin Laden 9/11 wouldn't have happened, nor can we say for sure that if Bush's administration had reacted more decisively to intelligence warnings they would have caught all the people involved. What's happened has happened, and I think it's an insult to the people that died to mudsling over it. Our focus needs to be on how to prevent more attacks, not how to use the lives that were lost as political ammunition.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:52 am |
|
Read my commentary on it  You'll notice that I don't "pin it down" solely on Clinton And respond to the intelligence stuff of the article, please, rather than simply ignore it and talk solely about Bush with intelligence. And there was nothing but good reason to take bin Laden. Clinton's tape is just wrong.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:09 am |
|
| Quote: | | I wish people would stop trying to blame this on a political side. |
Amen. September 11th wouldn't have happened if the terrorists couldn't have got hold of the planes. Airport security in American should have better, because those men where allowed to board that plane with guns.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:54 am |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Quote: | | I wish people would stop trying to blame this on a political side. |
Amen. September 11th wouldn't have happened if the terrorists couldn't have got hold of the planes. Airport security in American should have better, because those men where allowed to board that plane with guns. |
I blame at least 50% of 9/11 on the general namby-pamby weakness of our society being brought on by the pinko-commie far-left whackos. The terrorists took our planes with KNIVES! They knew they couldn't get guns on the planes. Any three normal people (if they have the guts) can take out a guy with a knife. The fourth plane is my proof. It's sad that all aboard died, but they kept anyone else from dying as result of the hijacking of that particular plane. I wish we could find out which passengers actually attacked the hijackers, because they deserve a monument in DC.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:30 am |
|
I think they do actually know, because of some calls. At least one of the guy's was on the phone to his family and said goodbye, as he told them a group of people were going to attack the terrorists, and so they might die.
THe problem with what you said is that they didn't know there was not a bomb on board. And for the people in the earlier plane crashes, they didn't know about the means of using them as a suicide means of mass distruction. They would have believed it to be a "normal" hijacking IMO.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:35 am |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | I think they do actually know, because of some calls. At least one of the guy's was on the phone to his family and said goodbye, as he told them a group of people were going to attack the terrorists, and so they might die.
THe problem with what you said is that they didn't know there was not a bomb on board. And for the people in the earlier plane crashes, they didn't know about the means of using them as a suicide means of mass distruction. They would have believed it to be a "normal" hijacking IMO. |
If the bad guys have bomb on board you're dead anyway. And all they had were knives!
Remember the "shoe bomber"? He DID have a bomb, but the people on the plane jacked him up. The best weapon against terrorists is everyday people being ready to go to the mat with them.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:39 am |
|
If the government negotiates a treaty though, so that you are released (or in most cases gains time to take the terrorists out) then you won't die. And as I said before, they didn't know they were going to be rammed into a building, so they didn't have a reason to believe they were certain to die.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:23 pm |
|
And this isn't all politics, mind you. I'm one who wants the politics of terrorism to just go away and us to be able to stop fighting over who's fault it is.
Both Presidents made mistakes, yes, but it was most definitely the intelligence departments over all that failed. Although that was very much due to rules made by the left and restrictions of Able Danger by the Clinton Administration, but nonetheless--this story really shows a great intelligence failure, that because the different agencies didn't speak to each other 9/11 wasn't preventable. If they did speak to each other, then it likely would have been.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:50 pm |
|
It's funny. In September of 2002, if you could believe this, Bill Clinton said to Larry King in response to the question, "What was your gut reaction to 9/11?"
He then said (and I just HEARD this): "'Bin Laden did this.' . . . I said, 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this, and [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country and targets. Bin Laden did it.'" (emphasis added).
So yeah. He was OFFERED bin Laden, etc, and almost a year after 9/11 he said THIS! Virtual obsession! It was VIRTUAL all right! There WAS no obsession! Not even close! All he gives a damn about is his legacy, NOT what really happened during his term. He was a failure as President and yet since 9/11 he's only SPUN his term. He's just plain RIDICULOUS. If he had done more during his term--particularly gotten rid of the failure Janet Reno--then 9/11 may not have happened! Now, I'm not putting all the blaim on him--no. But what I AM saying is that if he had actually DONE something, it would have helped MORE SIGNIFICANTLY to preventing 9/11 than anything else.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:52 am |
|
Getting Bin Laden probably wouldn't have stopped it though. Bin Laden isn't so much an organiser, but rather a public spokesperson. And I'm not saying he shouldn't have accepted him, but just that it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:28 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Getting Bin Laden probably wouldn't have stopped it though. Bin Laden isn't so much an organiser, but rather a public spokesperson. And I'm not saying he shouldn't have accepted him, but just that it probably wouldn't have made a difference. |
It would have made SOME difference--no doubt about it. Think of the intel we could have gotten from him
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
